BuzzerBeater Forums

It's just a rough idea, plenty of edges to sand off.

This fluctuation is expected and I was also thinking along the same lines on how to get around economic cash fluctuation. A two tier cap instead of one. The first softer cap (Maybe from -100 to -300k) will render you unable to purchase newer players. The second harder cap (maybe at -600k) is when your BB Accounts Manager steps in. The difference between the first and second cap should be sufficient to cater for any fluctuations in economy.

Exceptions. There will be one week during the normal season where some teams might not have a home game. In this event, the previous week's attendance revenue (Accountants like to go by hard, relevant data) will be used to determine if the club is operating too much in the red.

I have one issue on this idea. For B3 purpose it could mean higher salary cap for team from big countries due to TV contract, otherwise in big countries teams can have more trouble with attendance income. So I prefer more salary cap than your idea. Salary cap could be set different for different league levels but the same all around the world. Your idea finally is kind of floating salary cap, but I think too complicated to understand for many users and also much complicated to implement.
I think any idea how the solve the problem should be as simple as possible.

If the BBs went for the salary cap, I'd be happy.
The B3, as things go now, might be redundant in the future. We should all just compare bank accounts and give it to the person who wants to spend the most.

I think salary cap is the answer (and I think BB will implement it sooner or later) but it should be done without luxury taxes or fines if you go over salary cap. You can have roster with salaries over 2M, you can go minus 1M every week but system should forbid to place line up if sum of players' salaries is let's over 1,4 M, that way rich teams can splash their money as much as they want but they have to choose (or to buy if necessary) certain players from their roster to fit in salary cap for certain game. This solution would also let people to train and keep high potential salary monsters if people like to do that (but maybe they not always can play them).

What way would it be designed? If you set lineup over the cap your game would be forfeit? Because for me it looks little bit complicated not to allow to set lineup over the cap. I can imagine check at the moment of sending orders, but how about default lineup which is under the cap before salary update but over the cap after salary update.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 5/14/2011 5:55:32 AM

Lets just all go for it with whatever resources we bring to the party.... nothing more nothing less....

I am only surprised that I was able to sneak in my victory with a bunch of 23yo's....

Looking back.. the bb mails and chat room banter we shared I even remember BB's using the phrase "Arms Race"...... this I think set the precedence...... it's the biggest trophy (to everyone apart from those that want to be in it but can't be) and to win it you have to give everything... there will always be that person willing to give everything..... and with so many capable managers and 3 seasons to 1 actual year..... if you want to get your name chalked up on the winners board before you die or get bored, you gotta do what you gotta do!!

The same as system tells you that the player is injured or can't play in playoffs, the system can tell you that one or two players let's by priority with highest salary is over the salary cap and if you submit with that player he won't play the same as you will submit injured player.

Last edited by profit007 at 5/14/2011 6:06:58 AM

Ahh, I misunderstood your idea first. But in this way it's definitelly salary cap, because it would be really uneffective to be over the cap as you can use your player with highest salary. Firstly I think of your idea as managers could choose every game set of player which is below the cap, but that would be litlle bit more complicated for implementation.

Well, it's nice to see BB-Charles talking about how this is not a problem at the moment. I guess we have seen that statement many times before and later BBs suddenly appear with a change damaging some long-time planners, in this case, probably the "saving teams" are the one's who is going to be mad for the time BBs realized this is a problem. Like with big stadiums, economy inflation, monster players being bought for two days, and the tiny solutions they have started to implement about high end players salary. Managers do know more stuff that BBs becuase we are the ones playing the game, sometimes BBs knows more because, well, they design the GE and have more data.

So I guess we'll have to wait a few seasons where savings teams will become B3 champios and later BBs may say "we have a situation here".

---

In advance for that moment, we can still discuss this. How about a mixed cap? I'm thinking of a soft cap that when reached, a incremental luxury tax becomes active. So this will give managerial space to adapt to change in salary due training or some regulating weeks where you might be selling a injured player while buying a healthy one with the only cost of having to pay an extra(in the form of the tax) for that period. And later a hard cap kicks where you just can't not use your more talented(costly) player which is probably going to be cause you surpass the hard cap. If is surpassed by your two most costly players, then those two players could not be used and so on.

This will help us to define a hard cap so B3 would not become a competition of savings but of basketball. This also, would implement a short-term vs long-term decision in of the form of how, when to and by how much time are you going to use space that the soft caps gives you. So you will do have to prepare for B3 and probably have to arrange a time where you would have to spend more money than when playing local competition but you will be prevanted from buying the tournament due the hard cap that kicks in at a certain moment.

The caps could be adjusted in a dynamic fashion, just like salaries, based on world income. So if some reason, like new features affecting revenue, the caps would be adjusted accordingly.

Last edited by Zero, the Magi. at 5/15/2011 2:49:18 PM

Let's not forget that the good thing about salary is that it is strongly related to player strength. If you put in an artificial cap on salary however, B3-participants will scramble for skills that are not reflected in salary, so player value at the top end (affordable only to savers, again) will then be determined by skills that are more weakly related to player strength - that is an undesirable artefact. Think of level 25+ drivers with level 15 primaries as the elite of the game, on all 5 positions... this would not be much "basketball" either, inspite of this year's NBA-MVP.

What probably could be done to slow down super-savers is to introduce negative interest on a user's cash. In effect, this would imply a softcap on savings, with the level of the softcap depending on the saving rate (i.e. again favouring small countries). The fan survey already has a bit of this, but probably too little. Not sure whether von Hayek would have liked that though ;-)

I don't really know, he didn't study BB economý :D

Well there are some C's and PF's who are around 12-13 driving and yes, they sell for elite prices at this moment and without salary cap.

And yes, it will continue to be something good that salary is related to player strength. But that's not an issue.
I mean, right now you do see that most top managers do fight to get the more complete players on the market and that's not issue, and yes, right now top managers do seems to be looking for players with a lot of skills not reflected in salary for every level of player salary segment. And that's a good thing, since those player do require more training time and thus, are *better* than the others. In Basketball terms, they are also good.

If what you try to say is that B3 participants will push the price of very complete players too high, I'll say that's already happening but not only B3 long-term-planner-participants are the ones doing it.

The issue I see with the negative interest is that it will benefit small country managers a lot when compared when big countries (like you pointed out yourself). Anyway, the idea of negative interest rate do have benefits in his own right because it will slow down the savings that small countries are now getting, this will help a little to make a more *democratic* market. So, even if is not a really great idea to help solve the B3 problem, it does have arguments to be used for another purpose.